Fully hydroxyapatite-coated collared femoral stems in direct anterior versus direct lateral hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) via the direct anterior approach has increased in popularity in the last decade, with research supporting enhanced early recovery; however, some investigators have reported increased early revision rates in direct anterior THA. We examined outcomes from a single institution's experience with a fully hydroxyapatite-coated collared femoral stem implanted via the anterior or the lateral approach. Methods: Patients who had received fully hydroxyapatite-coated collared femoral stems as part of THA surgery performed by 1 of 3 surgeons between January 2012 and September 2017 were identified from our institutional database. We examined revision rates for the 2 approaches and compared them between the 2 groups. We also analyzed outcomes on plain film radiographs obtained immediately postoperatively and at 1 and 2 years. Results: A total of 695 patients received a fully hydroxyapatite-coated collared stem during the study period. Total hip arthroplasty was performed via the direct anterior approach in 281/778 hips (36.1%) and via the direct lateral approach in 497 (63.9%). Nineteen patients (2.5%) underwent subsequent revision surgery; there was no statistically significant difference in the revision rate between the anterior and lateral approaches (2.5% v. 2.4%, p = 0.95). The mean subsidence of the stem at 1 year was 1.68 mm (standard deviation 11.7 mm). No statistically significant differences were observed between the cohorts for any of the radiographic measurements at either follow-up time. Conclusion: We found no significant difference in revision rates between the direct anterior and direct lateral approach. Stem subsidence levels were in keeping with expected values, and no major changes in stem position occurred during the first postoperative year. Surgical approach did not appear to substantially affect biomechanical stem behaviour.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".